in that we know it when we see it.

In other words, it is a very subjective thing.

Any criticism can be perceived as negative. The truth can be perceived as negative as well. But truth is defined and defended with facts and well reasoned arguments.

I do not feel any animosity for Clinton supporters.

It does not mean though that I will not call out an inaccuracy if one is presented. I will challenge lies, distortions, and fabrications when I see them. I will present the facts and argue only from the place as I have done.

No, it is not always easy to let snark roll off your back especially when you are being rational and the other person is not even trying to debate you, only insult and deride you.

But I am human too. No one can be perfect. Sometimes I will lose my temper. I admit it and own it. I am passionate about Sanders as a candidate. Not because of him as a person so much as his positions and policies as being necessary and right. For once it just happens in my adult life to be congruent with the politician communicating them.

For me there is a difference between a 'negative campaign' and directly challenging someone who I believe is very wrong in very strong and well reasoned ways.

Of course, this goes without saying, that this is my take on this and does not reflect Sanders or anyone else here but me.

and the links in the OP at the link?........ plenty of useful ammo in regards to the other ........ but I thought it was nicely done on each point.

I agree with some and disagree with other parts of it.

I think the OP did what he did in it to show he knew what the score was to give legitimacy to his post and to his understanding of the political reality that we know is going on.

It was upvoted by the forum and reading the comments stated that support for why not to go negative............

That doesn't mean we can't be happy that it pisses off the others.

He is for or against ideas. I take it that "negative campaign" means "name calling" and not just being against something.

Citigroup, No.5 on Bernie's website "Top 10 Tax Avoiders"

Not only that, Citigroup has been her that shall not be named, top contributor every single election cycle: 2002/2004/2006/2008.......


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

"Citigroup made more than $4 billion in profits in 2010, but paid no federal income taxes. Citigroup received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury during the financial crisis. Citigroup has established 427 subsidiaries incorporated in offshore tax havens. In 2012, it stashed $42.6 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes.




Citigroup would owe an estimated $11.5 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance strategies were eliminated. Michael Corbat, the CEO of Citigroup, made more than $17.6 million in total compensation last year." (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders)